Identification and prioritization of patient-centred strategies to enhance IBD-related care for older adults: a modified Delphi approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The older adult age group makes up one of the fastest-growing groups of individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It is important to hear the perspectives of older adults living with IBD about care experiences and managing their illness. The purpose of this patient-oriented study was to identify and prioritize patient-centred strategies that have the potential to enhance IBD-related care for older adults in Saskatchewan. Methods: The interprofessional research team, consisting of older adult individuals living with IBD, gastroenterology providers, and researchers specializing in IBD or older adult education used a modified Delphi approach to identify and prioritize strategies that may enhance IBD-related care for older adults. Thirty-one older adults with IBD participated in ranking, revising, and prioritizing statements related to their chronic illness care. Nine statements were developed that highlighted strategies for older adult IBD care. Results: Through the consensus process, 6 statements were retained. Co-creating a treatment plan with the IBD provider was ranked as the top priority statement for older adults with IBD. Conclusion: Facilitating collaborative relationships and understanding individual priorities for IBD-related care for older adults has the potential to enhance positive health outcomes and quality of life for these individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.104 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".